Source: https://www.doctorjudywood.com/faq/
return
Is your "space beam" hypothesis testable?
First of all, I have never used the term "space beams." It is a derogatory term used to distract folks away from looking at the real evidence. The term was first coined by physicist Steven E. Jones within days of my first posting an article suggesting a high-tech energy weapon was used to destroy the WTC. It has been speculated that the purpose of using this name was to mock the hypothesis that unconventional methods were used to destroy the WTC. At this point, it has not been determined exactly what weapon was used, but the general category of what was used is fairly clear. The visual data as well as the issues related to the bathtub fragility and ground shaking eliminate the conventional demolition methods that have been proposed to date. The buildings “floated” to the ground as dust. So, is this hypothesis testable? Yes! And each of the phenomena identified at the WTC complex on 9/11 has been reproduced in a lab. We present this evidence here. This may or may not be the exact same way of creating the effects, but it is the same mechanism.
return
Why was "Star Wars Beam Weapons" used as the title for that paper?
This term was used because it is a familiar term that has been used over the last 20+ years to describe weaponry under development as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Since little is known about the technology specifically, though numerous articles and Defense websites describe its existence, plus the fact that hundreds of billions of dollars have been channeled to research in this area, it is reasonable to expect that tremendous advances have been made in technology over the past 50 years since microwaves and lasers were first developed.
The title was later changed to
"Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW),
(brought to you by the Star Wars Program)"
after I learned that such a class of weaponry was known to exist. That is, the evidence led me to this conclusion before I knew there was a name for it.
return
What is a DEW?
Beam Weapons, Energy Weapons, and Directed Energy Weapons (DEW):I have used the terms "beam weapons" and "directed energy weapons" to refer to unconventional weapons (exotic weapons) that are energy weapons. I broadly define DEW as Energy that is Directed and is used as a Weapon. The full range of these weapons is classified information, so I make no limits or distinction of categories within the realm of energy weapons, as doing so would imply specific knowledge of all that is available. In the following paragraph, I have listed some of the possibilities we are aware of.My critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet I make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform. Nor do I make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it involved sonoluminescence, whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved scalar weapons, whether it involved HAARP (more here and here), whether it involved a nuclear process (e.g. NDEW, more info), whether it involved conventional directed energy weapons (cDEW), whether it involved improvised directed energy weapons (iDEW), nor what kind of accelerator was used, nor do I claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts that were in the weapon(s).
What I do claim is that the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.
return
Why do you think we need it for 9/11?
It’s not a matter of need. It’s a matter of evaluating the available visual, ground shaking, and structural data. Though it is common knowledge that the laws of conventional physics were violated, the credibility of the physical and observable data to develop theories that withstand all observations is critical to the integrity to any conclusions. If analysis of this type is not undertaken, fraudulent research could be easily debunked, thus discrediting honest researchers and allowing the perpetrators to continue undeterred.
return
What can't we explain without it?
There are many pieces of physical data that are unexplainable by conventional theories. The low levels of ground shaking of the towers when compared with comparable structures/levels of shaking and the fact that the buildings did not collapse outside of their own footprint means they should have acted like a pile driver on their foundation, the force of which would have destroyed the structure and caused flooding of the WTC complex and lower Manhattan subway system.
return
Don't the reports of explosions undermine what you are saying?
No. The sound of an explosion does not automatically prove the sound came from a bomb. Not all explosions are caused by explosives. Cook a raw egg, still in the shell, in a microwave oven and you will hear an explosion. There is testimony from first responders about their Scott Packs "going off" and "exploding." After all, if the pressurized air tank, made of metal, is dissolving, at some point the metal tank will no longer be strong enough to contain the pressurized air and the tank will explode.
As both proponents and opponents of government complicity indicate, one cannot be sure that all testimony is valid. The observations of physical evidence via videos and pictures are far more reliable for determination of those theories that are and are not supportable.
return
Can't thermite/thermate do the whole job?
Thermite/thermate is an incendiary which may be able to cut steel, but could not account for the explosive destruction of the cement and other building materials in the building. Though supporters of this theory contend that it could potentially do the whole job, no modeling of these methods of demolition have ever been produced. The observations of tremendous precision in the destruction of the towers as they floated to the ground would appear to be far too precise for an incendiary. Further, the observed “toasted” cars, at great distances from the WTC complex, are difficult to explain with thermite/thermate. Also, unburned paper, missing windows and door handles of vehicles in proximity to the complex contradicts the thermite/thermate explanation and cannot be explained by it.
return
If thermite/thermate could do the whole job, wouldn't it be the simpler and preferable theory?
Simpler is one thing, explaining all the physical evidence is quite another. Bubblegum is a simple theory, but does not explain the evidence. Although the use of these incendiaries should be tested, evidence postulated to support the theory does not stand up to the visual evidence. That is, there is no evidence of tremendous burning infernos in the subbasements of the WTC towers. Photographic evidence on the days immediately following indicate no such heat. A person observed climbing into the subbasements as well as observed liquid water would tend to refute “urban legends” that pools of molten metal existed there. No evidence of search personnel being burned or overcome by heat have been found. Further, when the buildings came down, persons running from the scene were not burned by super-heated debris falling to the ground. The air was filled with dust and loose papers. The dust was dense enough to block out the sun, but it was not on fire.
return
Aren't these weapons classified?
Such high-tech weapons are classified and are not public knowledge. This does not mean they do not exist. However, as noted previously, piecemeal evidence of their existence exists in news briefings of defense personnel (including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld), defense websites, and other defense contractor websites. It is common knowledge that recent Administrations have made weaponization and total dominance of space a priority. Countless billions, if not trillions, of dollars have been budgeted for space weapons development as part of the SDI program noted previously.
return
How do we know they even exist?
As noted previously, this has been accumulated via numerous sources to paint the picture that they do exist. Further, past developers from government labs have indicated that they were involved in their development as far back as the 1960s.
return
Isn't this science fiction?
Though science fiction has fantasized about DEWs since before the 50s, microwaves and optics (lasers) have been available since that time. That their further development could not have exceeded what is currently available in industry and at academic research institutions is not likely since typical military technology advances are 15-20 years ahead of that which is known on the street.
return
What are "toasted" cars?
The term "toasted" (as in "toasted cars") is a generic term used for the odd destruction seen on vehicles around southern Manhattan, but is not limited to vehicles. A "toasted" vehicle means, "That vehicle is history; it's toast." It's a general term for an unknown process and does not necessarily imply heat.
return
Why do the "toasted" cars matter?
The “toasted” cars matter because they are observable evidence. If a theory cannot explain all the evidence, then it must be incomplete at best, incorrect at worst. That other theories do not explain this phenomenon lend credence to the explanation of DEW which could easily explain this through reflection and refraction of directed energy at the WTC site.
return
Why does the bathtub matter?
The foundation of the WTC towers were build on bedrock below the Hudson River. The bathtub served as a dike to hold back the Hudson River. The bathtub matters because its lack of damage is evidence. Remember, 500,000 tons of debris were supposed to have fallen in roughly the footprint of the towers, according to the OGCT. Since debris did not pile up outside the footprint of the towers, either the debris hammered down on the bathtub or it disappeared in a cloud of dust (observed). That there was no damage to this fragile layer of reinforced concrete at the very base, in the bathtub, when there is such total devastation to the concrete within the structures themselves, is horribly inconsistent. The fact that failure of this structure would have led to the flooding of the subway system in lower Manhattan is another reason that its lack of damage is significant.
return
Why does pulverization matter?
Pulverization matters because it requires an energy mechanism that allows the building to be destroyed without destroying the bathtub. Further, it is consistent with the lack of ground shaking that would be expected based on the mass of the buildings and the footprint within which the debris should have collapsed. Further, it explains the tremendous dust clouds and layers of dust found over many square miles of Manhattan. Last, it explains the lack of damage to neighboring structures (WTC 4, 5, and 6) due to falling debris which is not found in the vertical damage there. Non-WTC structures showed little damage except for one vertical cut in one building and some dust, minor debris, and broken windows elsewhere.
return
Why care about the speed of destruction?
The speed of destruction is important because even other conventional methods (or proposed methods in the case of thermite/thermate) would have considerable difficulty in producing the destruction times that were noted (nearly at freefall speed in a vacuum). By eliminating other methods of demolition, the focus can turn to the totality of the evidence that cannot and has never been explained by conventional means, not to mention the OCT.
(OCT = Official Conspiracy Theory)
return
Can you construct a destruction simulation?
A destruction simulation can be created, though not knowing the specific properties of what exactly caused the destruction, it will not be perfect. What was used has never been acknowledged to exist in source information within the public domain. DEW weapons are thought to still have top secret desginations for the most part, however some are now acknowledged to be either in existence or in production. It is evident in all of the visual pictorial evidence. That this evidence has not been taken into account to this point (vertical holes in WTC 5 and 6 and WTC3 between collapse of the Twin Towers, the toasted cars, the lack of damage to the bathtub, ...and low levels of ground shaking related to the building mass and footprint) is all the more important in that the evidence can be explained by technology the Pentagon has indicated it is pursuing, but has not publicly acknowledged that it has deployed. It can also be assumed that other countries have made similar advances.
Each of the phenomena identified at the WTC complex on 9/11 have been reproduced in a lab. We present this evidence here. This may or may not be the exact same way of creating the effects, but it is the same mechanism.
return
If not, why should we take you seriously?
As noted previously, the visual evidence provides the best description of what happened. Look at all of the various anomalies pointed about by the research shown (here, here, here, and here). Note that all anomalies can be explained by this mechanism.
The fact that other theories have already been debunked by NIST (thermite/thermate, bombs-in-the-building) and the fact that it is a physical impossibility that the buildings turned to dust on their own through fire-induced collapse, some source of energy was utilized. The vertical holes in WTC 5 & WTC 6 are very incriminating. No debris is found in the holes and they are perfectly vertical like the Etch-A-Sketch lines drawn on the famous children's toy. Something removed this material in (approximately) 24 foot swaths. Something broke down the steel, concrete, and other building materials in the Twin Towers symmetrically and at freefall speed in a vacuum. No other explanation has been given for this.
return
Where would all that energy come from?
The buildings and their contents were turned to dust. They were not vaporized or melted.
The energy may not be as tremendous as needed to vaporize or melt the masses of the two towers. It may be analogous to a microwave oven in that certain electromagnetic or sonic waves are used to excite the specific materials in the buildings to allow them to turn to dust without heating or vaporizing. Remember what we saw, not what theoretical known science tells you how to interpret what you saw. The sources of this energy may be from solar collectors in space or transmitted from ground based sources using transmission in the atmosphere with aircraft or satellite technology.
return
Is your hypothesis like "aliens did it"?
No, it is based on known technology, known research on SDI, the amount of investment in such research, the progression of known technology and optics, and above all the visible evidence. The visual evidence is key and eliminates other forms of technology.
return
If your theory is so flaky, why is it being attacked to viciously all over the place?
That is a great question. Please note I present evidence, not a theory. But even if it were, when you think about it, then it's a "theory" that explains all the visual evidence is called "flaky", yet is attacked visciously, though is not debunked. It is simply called crazy and looney. As most Truthers should understand by now, the more something is attacked, the more likely it is that this researcher is on to something.
return
What hypothesis, precisely, are you willing to commit yourself to at this stage of research?
The hypothesis that the WTC buildings were all destroyed in a way that has never been seen before is consistent with the use of Directed Energy Weapons.
return
Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins say it would take five times the earth's energy output to destroy the WTC. So, doesn't that mean that you've been debunked?
Are the towers still there? If they have been destroyed, then obviously there was enough energy to destroy them in the way they were destroyed. Does Steven Jones or Greg Jenkins believe the towers are still standing? To say that it would take more than five times the earth's energy output to destroy the WTC, then say that thermite did it, are they claiming that the thermite came from off planet?
returnExactly how much energy would be required to pulverize the WTC towers?
This is not known. Different methods could produce different results. What is known is that the Twin Towers were turned to dust. Cars and trucks were toasted in spots and left perfectly intact in others. Vertical holes were opened in other WTC buildings and the Bankers Trust building. Only the buildings of the WTC were destroyed that day and the physical anomalies of missing building volume of the Twin Towers cannot be explained by any other theory. The Twin Towers were turned to dust, so obviously there was enough energy to do this. (The fact that it happened is proof that it is possible.)
return
Why do some people (i.e. Steven Jones, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers) get so nervous when asked about directed energy weapons?
This is a good question.
Steven Jones: Consider that his entire carreer has focused on energy and has been funded by the Department of Energy (DOE). He also has worked at Los Alamos, where Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) were developed. Steven Jones was involved in the "debunking" of cold fusion. (more -- google "heavy watergate")
Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers: In a press conference with these two people, Donald Rumsfeld essentially admitted that DEW was being used in Iraq. This admission by Donald Rumsfeld appeared to cause Richard Myers a great deal of discomfort (or shame?). (Downloadable versions are provided for mov(17.5 Mb) and wmv (6.6 Mb) formats.)
return
Is it possible that some of the mass of the towers was converted to energy (E=mc2), and if so, does this help satisfy the energy requirement problem?
The gravitational potential energy (PE = mgh) is not enough to destroy the WTC towers. More energy is needed. But, the energy required to destroy the building would depend on the mechanism involved. Yes, it is possible.
return
A bright glow is observed on several videos, occurring about the time the disintegration of WTC1 is finished and the mushroom cloud is well formed. Do you think this is something real, or just a video artifact of some sort?
WTC1 is finished and the mushroom cloud is well formed. Is this something real, or just a video artifact of some sort? This is difficult to say. Again, not knowing specifically what it was that destroyed the towers (again, there is no debate that they buildings were widely converted to dust, not rubble) it is difficult to know if that was a video artifact or an actual piece of evidence.
return
You've coined the term "dustification" to describe what happened to the towers. Can you define this?
The buildings were turned to dust. The exact mechanism is not known, but it is known that there was such a process. The term, dustification, is given to refer to this, yet-to-be-defined, mechanism. Dustification means that the buildings were not melted, evaporated, or turned to course rubble. It is a known fact that the contents of the Twin Towers were converted to very fine dust that covered much of lower Manhattan several inches deep. It can be seen as the buildings came down that the mass above the demolition wave is no longer there, is not falling past the demolition wave and is not in its original condition. Where did it go? All that is left is a giant cloud of dust that moves with great force throughout downtown Manhattan and drifts away with the wind. No hot embers were noted anywhere in Manhattan as seen by the loose sheets of paper everywhere that are not burning right next to the toasted cars that are.
return
Could the 47 massive steel columns (in each tower) have fallen in the sub level basements? Could this be the reason it's not visible in the photographs? If not, why not?
What would have caused them to collapse at the bottom? Did we see the bottom of the building pulling in at the same time the top of the building is coming down? Could all of the floor truss connections all have failed at the exact same time? This is highly unlikely due to visual evidence. There are massive open holes in the sub-basements that cannot be explained. If the core columns were in there, wouldn't there mass have filled much of the holes that existed post collapse? Again, look at the visual evidence and see for yourself. In addition, a video of the first rescue workers going into the basement records an obvious echo, indicating the basement had large open areas.
Figure 16. First rescuers under the WTC remains, "someone down there-there-there..."
return
Why was WTC 6 pulled with cables?
That is a good question. However, the proper parties to ask are those who did it. The proper parties to have done the asking were NIST investigators and other governmental investigators. To my knowledge, the governmental investigators did not do so.
return
What about the sound of explosions? Were there explosives planted in the building?
The sound of an explosion does not automatically prove the sound came from a bomb. Not all explosions are caused by explosives. Cook a raw egg, still in the shell, in a microwave oven and you will hear an explosion. There is testimony from first responders about their Scott Packs "going off" and "exploding." After all, if the pressurized air tank, made of metal, is dissolving, at some point the metal tank will no longer be strong enough to contain the pressurized air and the tank will explode.
return
What about the "molten metal"?
return
What about "fires lasting for 99 days"?
There has been no physical evidence of actual fires (or smoldering fires) at the WTC complex after 9/11. However there was (and continues to be, but to a lesser degree) evidence of "fuming," which is consistent with molecular dissociation.
· Workers at Ground-Zero in "fuming haze"
return
You were "caught on tape" saying that we should not get distracted by numbers when asked exactly how much energy would be required to destroy the WTC. Is this true?
Yes, I do believe it is a distraction to focus on "numbers." What is the purpose of these "numbers"? Do you wish to prove the towers are gone? Or do you wish to prove that the towers are still there? Why not just look and see?
:-)
It is curious why Steven Jones has insisted that I produce such calculations, but has made no such calculations for how much thermite would be required, nor how much thermate would be required, nor how much superthermite would be required, nor how much nano-enhanced thermite would be required, nor how much spray-on thermite would be required, nor how much of whatever he is now proposing would be required.
return
That video of you with Greg Jenkins really discredits the "truth movemnt." Shame on you.
A manipulated video has been promoted on the internet that is equivalent to drawing a mustache and devil horns on my photograph. This does nothing to discredit me or my work. If this video concerns you, perhaps you may want to ask the individuals promoting it what their motivation is and if their motivation is to discredit the "truth movement." You may also want to ask those promoting this video why this video is so important to them.
return
Mr. Gage claims the hypothesis or theories of "Dr. Woods" are unsupported by the evidence. Is this true?
First, the name is Dr. Wood, not Woods. Presenting correct information to the public is important for one's credibility.
Second, I not have a hypothesis or theories. I present evidence. As a forensic scientist, I know that the evidence must tell the story. You cannot convict someone of a crime based on a theory. I filed a federal qui tam case against the contractors on the NIST report, accusing them of science fraud. I was not sanctioned by the courts for filing a frivolous case. Much of my evidence has now been published in a book and is available to those interested in the evidence. (See Where Did the Towers Go?)
In my book, I only present evidence and discusses evidence and analyzes evidence of what happened on 9/11. Empirical evidence cannot be "wrong." And no, empirical evidence is not a "theory." I present empirical evidence of what happened on 9/11. The measurement of someone's height is evidence of their height and is not a "theory" or a "hypothesis." It appears that many use the term "hypothesis" as a way of discounting or denying the evidence I present.
If someone fails to understand the difference between "hypothesis" and evidence, it brings their credibility into question.
return
Mr. Gage claims Dr. Wood doesn't use the scientific method. Is this true?
I am a scientist and have followed scientific methods in conducting a comprehensive forensic investigation of what happened on 9/11. The first step in a forensic investigation is to determine what happened. What happened is not a case of belief. This is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done. Mr. Gage has not conducted a comprehensive forensic scientific investigation and determined what happened on 9/11. Instead, he has continued to call for "a new investigation." But a comprehensive and independent forensic investigation does exist, comleted by a highly qualified forensic scientist, but Mr. Gage refuses to read, analyze, or address this investigation which is in the book, Where Did the Towers Go?, but stated he would look at it. The question becomes with a "new investigation" that he proffers continuously, why has he refused to read this "new investigation" by Dr. Wood if his real goal is the determination of the truth of 911? Not only does Mr. Gage refuse to read the comprehensive forensic investigation of what happened on 9/11, he removes members from his organization who do.
Someone who publicly claims that I do not follow the scientific method brings their own credibility into question.
Video 1: Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 (Part 1 of 2)
Video 2: Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 (Part 2 of 2)
Figure 17. URL (7:04)
pookzta
Figure 18. URL (7:02)
pookzta
More cases are presented here.
Correspondence from Scott Krajca
From: Scott Krajca (former member of ae911truth.org)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 05:36:06 -0700
To: [email protected]
Conversation: Scott Krajca -- AE follow up
Subject: Re: Scott Krajca -- AE follow up
Dear AE 911 Truth,
I just recently checked your website and saw that my profile has been added to the degreed engineer petition list: http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=973060 I also see that my supporting statements about Dr. Judy Wood's work have been removed from my bio section despite the disclaimer at the bottom of the user profile pages: Disclaimer: The personal views expressed by Supporters in their Bio's, Personal 9/11 Statements, and/or other locations on our website, are not necessarily those of AE911Truth.org, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc., its Board Members, employees, volunteers, other supporters, or any other people officially or unofficially associated or affiliated with AE911Truth. I remember during my verification interview that this may happen, but the more I sit with it, I no longer wish to be a supporter of your organization. Please remove me from the petition. I hope that someday your organization can be more open-minded about the evidence and occurrences on that tragic day. I for one do not know for sure what happened on that day, but in the interest of truth and evidence I believe we should consider insightful evidence that your organization is looking at as well as the evidence Dr. Wood has presented in detail and in a very professional manner. I have also read your "about us" page many times to see if I had missed something before signing the petition and I find it ironic that your first bullet under "our organization is devoted to" is "dispelling misinformation with scientific facts and forensic evidence".http://www.ae911truth.org/en/about-us.html From what I have read in Dr. Wood's book she has done just that, but I also see that your organization has taken a strong stance and have decided her work is "disinformation". Because of this, again, please remove me from your petition. I wish us all well as we move forward towards truth and hope that one day we can meet up again as one voice. As someone I look up to says often, "be skeptical, but don't close your mind"... that is my wish for us all.Sincerely,
Scott Krajca
From: brian romanoff (representing ae911truth.org)
Date: June 10, 2011 7:28:01 AM PDT
To: Scott Krajca
Subject: Sorry to see you go
Scott,
In short we reserve the right to edit or alter statements, which is mentioned as well. We do this anytime Judy Woods is mentioned [emphasis added] among other distracting topics.
More to the point, we stay open-minded to science. That is why we don't stay open-minded to the "science" of Judy Woods presentations [emphasis added] which have changed immensely since her rising to the scene. From radiowaves to mini-nukes; whatever catches a readers attention with wild photos and claims.
Please feel free to continue your investigations into the events of 9/11 and remember that we will welcome you back anytime.
The story of Judy Woods is a long one, but here is some reading for you:
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq-6-whats-your-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis.html
Regards,
Brian Romanoff
Note, my work has not changed. I have only added more detail as it became available. This is documented in my submission to NIST in March 2007, which was before ae911truth.org first put up their website and then made a submission to NIST.
More cases are presented here.
An organizaton that bans discussion of the truth while promoting disinformation brings into question their agenda.
return
Does the "article" posted on the ae911truth website refute your work?
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq-6-whats-your-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis.htmlAE911Truth FAQ #6: What's Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?
Written by Jonathan Cole, P.E., Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts
During a May 8, 2011 interview, Mr. Gage claimed I only address two phenomena in my book, which is incorrect.
(Listen to the three short clips from that interview which have been joined together and linked here.)
In his article, Mr. Gage (incorrectly) implies my book is about "laser beams from space" and references other articles that have "debunked" this issue. So the article is quite misleading in that it does not address what my book is actually about nor have any of the "debunking" articles address the material I present, either. There is nothing to refute as their article does not address the research in my book. They merely promote disinformation about my work.
If someone has read my book and has misunderstood what is on each of the more than 500 pages in my book, they have lost their intellectual integrity. One must question the motivaton to discourage the public from looking at the evidence. What is their objective?
return
Mr. Gage claims Dr. Wood overlooks the existence of nanothermite. Is this true?
The first step in a forensic investigation is to determine what happened. What happened on 9/11 is not merely a case of belief. This is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done. Until he has done that, nothing else has any scientific value.
I have determined what happened; most of the buildings were turned to dust. Therefore the dust would be expected to contain traces of all materials that were in the building. Finding traces of chocolate, sugar, and nano-wheat (flour) in the dust would not prove that chocolate-chip cookies turned the buildings to dust. It would not prove there were chocolate chip cookies in the building nor that such cookies were capable of turning buildings to dust. The same is true for thermite. (See Where Did the Towers Go?, p. 124)
If someone makes the statement that I have overlooked this issue when this is not true, it brings their credibility into question.
return
Mr. Gage claims Dr. Wood ignores or overlooks the existence of iron microspheres. Is this true?
Please read Chapter 15 of my book (Where Did the Towers Go?) and then explain to me why you claimed the existence of iron microspheres was overlooked. Mr. Gage as been aware of this at least since May 8, when it was explained to him during a radio interview. (Three clips from that interview are joined together and linked here.) So it is troubling why Mr. Gage has continued to make this claim.
Audio: Richard Gage, 5/8/11
Video 3: Richard Gage, 6/24/11
Figure 19. URL (x:xx)
May 8, 2011, Three clips from joined together from the Ralph Winderrowd Show.
Figure 20. URL (4:33)
June 24, 2011, The description of the video: "In this video I question Richard Gage in Rotterdam on 24-6-2011 about Judy Wood's DEW hypothesis. What struck me most is his last words in answering my question."
samertje
If someone makes the statement that I have overlooked this issue when this is not true, it brings their credibility into question. It is especially troubling that after being corrected, they continue to promote this falsehood.
return
Mr. Gage claims Dr. Wood denies or overlooks the existence of molten metal. Is this true?
Please read Chapter 13 of my book (Where Did the Towers Go?) and then explain to me what the evidence reveals. This issue has not been overlooked. Please explain how it can be 819°F at the location where firefighters are wading in knee-deep water.
On 9/11, if there had been molten metal, there should have been a steam explosion with all of this water.
Figure 21. Thermal map excerpt taken September 16, 2001. Zone F was supposedly the largest hot spot.
(9/16/01) Source and here
Figure 22. This is a view from the southern "shore" after a water-main broke. Note the "steam" appearance along the "northern shore" that cannot be the result of "hot water" because there are live people wading along that shore. (9/11/01) Source:
If someone makes the statement that I have denied or overlooked this issue when this is not true, it brings their credibility into question.
return
Why doesn't Dr. Wood write refutations of all of the refutations claimed against her work?
There are numberous "debunking" articles that have been posted around the internet on various hit-piece sites, such as http://ae911truth.org/ and Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies (or JONES) . One might ask why they have chosen to spend their time presenting the appearance of "infighting" rather than submitting a Request for Correction (RFC) to NIST with their purported "evidence" as I have done with mine, and why they have spent their time writing deceptive and dishonest hit pieces on the only person who has filed a federal qui tam case to hold anyone accountable for science fraud covering up the destruction of the WTC buildings. Why haven't they spent their time filing a federal qui tam case with their so-called "evidence" instead of writing deceptive hit pieces? This is especially troubling and brings into question their organization's true objective.
I have chosen to spend my time on determining what happened on 9/11, then submitting my findings to NIST in a Request for Correctsion (RFC), and subsequently filing a federal qui tam case seeking accountability for those who committed science fraud and covering up the crime of 9/11. Some of those covering up the crime know whose technology was used to carry it out. So, why would the organized "Truth Movement" spend their energy and time writing hit pieces on me instead of supporting this federal qui tam case?
As of today (September 30, 2011) my book has been out almost a year. In that time, no one has refuted any of the information in my book. They cannot. It is empirical evidence.
Much organized effort has been made to divert attention away from the evidence I have presented and to misrepresent it and to cover it up. Those spending their time writing hit pieces that create a false impression of my work, instead of addressing the evidence of what happened on 9/11, reveal their primary objectives in doing so.
return
Archived URL: https://www.doctorjudywood.com/faq/
�� CONTENT HASHES:
SHA-256: beab219b2e1372b1fa313b9bcba3e27a094555a3295cb22f88dbae1e4878a143
BLAKE2b: b33041620ce56ae74ce6325964d3e4cee9346bff9b6ea05f03039da21a0bd7c1
MD5: ffe1f087ccb6cff1e81d7b5aec9b2910
�� TITLE HASHES:
SHA-256: 5988537c8e402df1febf9f6e717e29d489479dce062d446dcb42d4499a32044e
BLAKE2b: 9f80a2139aa866aa0cc5da256beb7c0b2c167c804c3bcb1142aa2bb7203c6299
MD5: 066f54cf6e43025a6ca1d7215e6a0b98
�� INTEGRITY HASHES:
SHA-256: ec842dc67ad76e2f9dd8ccfffbd09e714bb0a6859284f8690ae4f90e8bbe9a2f
BLAKE2b: 4b5fe1b605cfb81676aa24e9b39a4965c67bf4ea1636cc57bd5b4b6c130f8aba
MD5: 7859597e1efe9b157c62fca6b10dba01
Archived with ArcHive - Client-side cryptographic archival system